Back in April, Emergent Legal sued to invalidate the "CrossFit" trademark on the grounds that it was generic (because it doesn't connote any particular product or service) and had been abandoned by naked licensing (because CrossFit, Inc. made no attempt to control the quality of training carried out under its name). Today, news and financial analysis website Bidness Etc published a short piece about CrossFit Inc.'s "struggl[e]" to protect its brand, and noted our work.

We appreciate the nod, and look forward to working with our cocounsel, Gaw Poe LLP, to demonstrate that the "CrossFit" term is not entitled to protection.